Add Willaim Falk to the list of economics ignoranti.

The Week is an excellent magazine.  Its main idea is to present both sides of an argument, followed by a summary conclusion, which typically leans more liberal than conservative.

I am a subscriber. So, I was especially disappointed when I read the June 6th Editor’s Letter. It promulgates the Big Lie in economics, which consists of two fundamental misstatements:

1. Federal taxes fund federal spending, and
2. Federal debt and deficits are burdens on the government and on taxpayers.

Individuals who hold these beliefs reveal that they lack an understanding of economics in general and Monetary Sovereignty in particular.

Editor’s letter,The Week (US), 6 Jun 2025
William Falk Editor-at-large

You and I are not paying enough in taxes. What???

Almost no one will speak this heresy aloud, particularly if they hold public office. But there’s no other rational conclusion to be drawn from the nation’s rapidly deteriorating fiscal condition.

The “big, beautiful” budget bill that the House recently passed would add at least $3.8 trillion to the nation’s total debt, which has ballooned to an unimaginable $36.4 trillion.

Here, Mr. Falk equates “deteriorating fiscal condition” with the “unimaginable” $36.4 trillion federal debt.

The so-called “federal debt” (which is neither federal nor debt) actually is two numbers.

1. The net total of federal deficits — the difference between taxes collected and money spent.
2. The total of deposits into Treasury Security accounts, which are wholly owned by the depositors, not by the federal government.

Number 1 doesn’t even hint at debt because nothing is owed. All that spending has already been paid for

Number 2 incorrectly implies debt, as the securities are referred to as “bonds,” “notes,” and “bills,” which represent forms of debt in the non-federal sector.

Confusingly, words can have different meanings when used in different contexts. Mr. Falkdoes not seem to understand the difference between the federal context and the non-federal context.

The federal context is Monetary Sovereignty, where the government has the unlimited ability to create dollars by passing laws and pressing computer keys.. It cannot run short of dollars, and neither needs nor uses income.

The non-federal context is monetary non-sovereignty — state/local governments, businesses, and individuals — that do not have this ability. They do need and use income to pay their bills.

Not understanding the difference is like failing to recognize the different meanings of the word “fast,” as in speed versus dieting.

The debt has become so massive, Clive Crook says in Bloomberg, that all but a handful of deficit hawks have “just stopped thinking about it.”

Deficit hawks are the ignorants who claim federal deficits are negative and a burden on taxpayers and the federal government when, in fact, deficit spending is necessary for economic growth.

But as we blithely sail into this uncharted red sea, we might spare a thought about where it may lead.

It’s not uncharted. As you can see at, “Historical bullshit about federal ‘debt’” from Sept. 26 to May 30, 2025,” the deficit hawks have been making the same claim since at least 1940. That’s 85 years of being wrong, and still having learned nothing. Amazing! 

For decades, Democrats and Republicans have jointly conspired to give Americans expensive benefits, services, and national defense without asking us to truly pay for them.

That is exactly what a Monetarily Sovereign government is supposed to do: Provide benefits to the people without asking them to pay for them. Why else would we suffer the egos and ignorance of politicians?

Since the Trump tax cuts in 2017, the federal deficit has tripled to $1.8 trillion a year.

Translation: Since the Trump tax cuts in 2017, the federal government has tripled the number of growth dollars it has pumped into the economy at no cost to anyone.

The annual interest payment on our debt is nearing $1 trillion—surpassing the entire Pentagon budget.

Translation: The annual infusion of growth dollars into the economy, just from interest, is nearing $1 trillion — even more growth dollars than the Pentagon inputs. 

It’s simply not realistic to believe that we can cut our way out of this mess.

The so-called “mess” is the unprecedented economic growth that has resulted from federal deficit spending.

Significant defense cuts are highly unlikely as China aggressively seeks to surpass the U.S. as the world’s dominant military and economic power.

If the “debt hawks” are successful in their economic debilitation efforts, China surely will surpass the U.S. as the world’s dominant military and economic power.

Medicare and Social Security are on unsustainable trajectories, but even if Washington ever gets the courage to impose reforms, the upward curve of their immense cost can be bent only to a modest degree.

Since the Monetarily Sovereign U.S. government has the infinite ability to pay for anything, Medicare and Social Security  never will become “unsustainable.” 

Americans have been conditioned to believe we can have it all—the world’s mightiest military, a strong social safety net rivaling Europe’s, and corporate and personal taxes that are among the lowest in the developed world.

We wish that were true. Sadly, Americans have been conditioned to believe that federal finances are like household finances, and that the federal government can run short of dollars. 

The conditioners of that nonsense are the rich, who bribe the media, the politicians, and the university economists to promulgate the Big Lie, the purpose of which is to widen the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

That’s right: Taxes at all levels of government represent 25% of U.S. gross domestic product in 2023, compared with an average of 34% for 37 developed nations.

Again, Mr. Falk conflates Monetarily Sovereign with monetarily non-sovereign nations into “developed nations.” The U.S., Canada, and the UK are examples of Monetarily Sovereign nations. France, Germany, and Italy are examples of monetarily non-sovereign nations.

The former never can run short of their sovereign currencies. The latter have no sovereign currencies. They use the euro. So they can, and often do, run short of money.

If one doesn’t understand the difference, one shouldn’t we writing articles based on ignorance.

So why is Congress preparing to extend and even expand the Trump tax cuts? You don’t get elected by asking voters and donors to make sacrifices.

There is no need for the U.S. government ever to ask voters or “donors” (?) to sacrifice anything. That is what Monetary Sovereignty means.

If you know Mr. Falk, please let him know he’s mentioned here. I’m sure he will be thrilled.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY